Krauthammer and Hayes on Obama’s Afghanistan speech

Charles Krauthammer: I thought it was a rather strange speech. It was defensive and it was a lot of hedging. the president said at the end that our resolve is unwavering. He said in August this was a war of necessity. And then he gives us all of the reasons that we need to start leaving in a year and a half. And among the reasons he gave was that it was a very expensive war and we have a bad economy and that’s at least of equal importance. It’s not exactly the kind of speech you would have heard from Henry V or Churchill. And it’s not exactly the kind of speech you heard from George Bush when he announced his surge.

Stephen Hayes: The most important role of a president is Commander in Chief. This felt very small to me. The president in one sentence called this the common security of the world is at stake. And literally in the very next sentence he said we’re going to get out in July 2011. If it is the case that the common security of the world is at stake you don’t say that we need to figure out the problem in 18 months or we’re out of here.

Watch the video at either that link, or this one. Ed Morrissey has some related thoughts that should be considered a must-read.

I would add to what’s already written that Obama’s speech reminded me of Bill Clinton’s last year at the DNC. It sounded obligatory and lacked passion and emotion – and, more importantly, determination, three key factors that are normally present in both Obama and Clinton when talking issues that are important to them respectively. There was no heart in Obama’s speech. It’s something he “had” to do but would rather be addressing more “important” issues, like healthcare “reform” and cap and trade. It’s exactly the kind of toneless speech you’d expect from a solidly anti-war President who is trying to make the case for escalating a war.

I’m aware that the right has serious issues with certain aspects of Obama’s plan, but it makes no difference if we’re operating on the best plan in the world if the man in charge of it all doesn’t demonstrate the resolve and determination to see the mission through to a successful conclusion. For whatever Bush’s faults were, you never doubted that he understood the big picture and new that it was imperative for us to win. The inclusion of a timetable in Obama’s plan is deeply troublesome, for reasons that are obvious to all but those on the anti-war left who have never gotten it and never will. A timetable sends a signal to the opposition forces that if they just tough it out for a little while longer, eventually the US will give up and cut and run, exit stage left – leaving the door wide open for the violent hostilities and lawlessness to resume. It also sends a signal to allied forces that the United States is only committed to a year and a half time frame for success, and that beyond that, well – too bad. What country would want to send additional troops into a situation where their allies were not committed to success – even beyond a specified timeframe for withdrawal?

That said, regardless of what I feel ideologically about most of this President’s policies – both foreign and domestic – it’s in this country’s national security interests in seeing our mission in Afghanistan succeed. And regardless of how some are now describing this war as “Obama’s war,” I reject that characterization. This is “our war” – America’s war, and one that we’re in to win, and most of us are praying that our President, though anti-war, feels the same way.

Time will tell. In the meantime, please continue to keep our military in your thoughts and prayers – the ones who are already there, and the ones who will be there when the Afghanistan surge is officially implemented.

obama is weak…everyone is aware of it, even the enemy. ( not the west point heroes, chris )…to give a drawdown date to the taliban and al quaeda is a typical, idiotic lefttard move… they don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground when it comes to war.

When Bush announced the Iraqi surge every solider being sent over there knew their CIC was behind them 100%, even at the expense of Bush’s political standing. They were being asked to go into harms way by a man they they knew would have gladly joined them in the fight if that was required.
Last night we witnessed a politicain sending soliders into harms way with all the enthusiasm of a plumber being forced to snake a clogged toilet. Nobody will be inspired by Obama to go above and beyond for their country, they will go, do the job and hopefully return home safely but nobody will re-enlist to go back again given Obama’s limp wristed call to arms.

Man o’ man so many Democrats in Congress are really upset this morning at Obama for not giving the Taliban our unconditional surrender last night. Looks like we’ll have to drag this out a few more years pretending to fight the terrorists (for public consumption) before Obama finally officially gives the Taliban our unconditional surrender just before the 2012 presidential election in order to energize the Democratic Party’s left loony political base.

Ya can’t fight a war while you let your enemies’ people (muslims) continue to immigrate to your country, even serve in your Army!

It’s the immigration, stooopid. The mass immigration of muslims prevents us from saying we’re at war with Islam (not total war but we’re at war with fundamentalist, militant Islam). Which we’ve been at war with since the 1970’s.

If he wants to be out by July…might I suggest that he use the same philosophy of spending that he has been using for health care and cap and trade…spend like there is no tomorrow…because if the terrorist do succeed and we decide to pull out there will be no tomorrow.

“…some are now describing this war as “Obama’s war,” I reject that characterization. This is “our war”…”

In principal, I agree with that, ST, but in reality Mr Duh-1 has now taken ownership of it because he has to make sure we lose, and not only lose but turn tail and run embarrassingly. Only then will he be able to go to the rest of the muslim world and tell them that he got out as fast as he could to stop the attack on their religion.

The other aspect of his speech that struck me was how many times he blamed GWB for everything. Again and again he made references to “the failed policies of the past” or similar. Obama is very self-reverential and loves to pat himself on the back.

Maybe he best try to clean out the corruption in his own government first, starting with himself and his staff, then going to such corruptocrats as Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Boxer and nearly the whole passel of congressweasels. If the average Joe or Jane on the street stole 1% of the money these creeps do every session we’d be in prison for life!

When the weather is cold or I am very tired I limp a little from a mishap during the Southeast Asian War Games. A fight, we later discovered, that the Democrats who started it had no intention, nor plan for winning. Then when Nixon came along and actually won the thing and pulled our ground troops out with a series of promises to the South Viets in case the North Viets re-invaded, the North did re-invade and the Democrats in Congress broke those promises.

Now the Democrats are trying to do the same thing, break the promises we’ve made.

If I were an Afgani who had done anything to help us or NATO, I’d get out. I don’t know where I could go but any Afghani who has helped us is the walking dead. Eighteen months from now the Teliban is going to open up those soccer fields again.

If I were wearing Uncle’s suit today I’d go kiss my Platoon SGT or anything else I could do to avoid going downrange. Why take the chance on getting hurt, crippled or killed? Obama doesn’t care about winning. He is, however, willing to risk the lives of our young men and women in order to look like he’s tough enough to stand up to Republicans.